Washington DC Braces for Net Neutrality Protests Later This Month

The Guardian reports that net neutrality advocates are getting together and planning a two day protest in Washington DC. The protest is planned the day when the Federal Communications Commission will meet September 26th and the next day the coalition will meet with legislators. Thanks grtitan for this.

"The FCC seems dead set on killing net neutrality, but they have to answer to Congress, and Congress has to answer to us, their constituents,” said Evan Greer, campaign director for Fight for the Future, one of the protest's organisers.

We aren't bracing for much here in D.C.

Net Neutrality = Internet stagnation as regulations crush startups and the big companies will only provide what they are required at absurd rates that people will have to pay because of the regulation created monopoly handed to them by the FCC.

When Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T WANT Net Neutrality ... you know its time to back off and rethink things.

Taldren said:

Net Neutrality = Internet stagnation as regulations crush startups and the big companies will only provide what they are required at absurd rates that people will have to pay because of the regulation created monopoly handed to them by the FCC.

When Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T WANT Net Neutrality ... you know its time to back off and rethink things.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, Google, Facebook, Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T only want what's best for us! Besides, we can't allow so-called net-neutrality to come about via legislation....noooo, it MUST be imposed by the unelected FCC. That way, later, when the FCC tries to regulate internet speech, and someone shouts "You don't have that authority", they'll be able to point to their imposition of Net neutrality as proof of their scope of power.

FCC imposed "Net neutrality" was always about expanding the FCC's authority through precedent. It's the candy coating on the poison that comes later.

Why haven't any Democrats put forth Net Neutrality legislation in Congress?

They dont want net neutrailty, they are just acting like it so they can get more power over the process to skew it in their favor.

https://consumerist.com/2017/07/12/...-are-not-suddenly-in-favor-of-net-neutrality/

Taldren said:

Net Neutrality = Internet stagnation as regulations crush startups and the big companies will only provide what they are required at absurd rates that people will have to pay because of the regulation created monopoly handed to them by the FCC.

When Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T WANT Net Neutrality ... you know its time to back off and rethink things.

Click to expand...

Those companies are only paying lip service to their customers as they lobby to kill it. Do you really think a bot network would be deployed and a massive amount of lobby dollars would be funneled in for something they don't want? If these ISPs are ok with NN, they wouldn't care either way.

I also don't see how NN crushed any sort of startup under difficult regulations. That seems like a big stretch. These ISPs already have a form of monopoly, NN just helped make sure they didn't further abuse it.

You need to lay off the coffee, as it seems you might be drinking from Pai's massive Reese's branded cup.

Taldren said:

Net Neutrality = Internet stagnation as regulations crush startups and the big companies will only provide what they are required at absurd rates that people will have to pay because of the regulation created monopoly handed to them by the FCC.

When Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T WANT Net Neutrality ... you know its time to back off and rethink things.

Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have been against it from the beginning and fought it in court. They lost because Wheeler changed the classification that made it so the internet could be regulated as a common carrier by the FCC and then we got net neutrality on books. Those 3 do not want net neutrality. If they are saying they want it now it is only for PR, in closed meetings they still want to be able to fleece the American public as much as they can and removing net neutrality does that.

As a side note net neutrality does not hurt small business at all. It actually protects them so they don't get extorted by being forced to pay extra to have decent bandwidth to their sites.

Edited to add that I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows the ISPs are not for NN. For a second I thought some weird mandella effect thing was going on.

Per evangreer.org, Evan Greer, the professional left wing activist and self described radical mentioned in the article teaches a myriad of far-left courses for ca$h. Book Evan for your University, High School, Organization, or Union today!

Spidey329 said:

Those companies are only paying lip to their customers as they lobby to kill it.

I really don't see how NN crushed any sort of startup under difficult regulations. That seems like a big stretch.

These ISPs already have a form of monopoly, NN just helped make sure they didn't further abuse it.

Click to expand...

Can you cite any examples of "Net Neutrality" making sure ISP's 'didn't abuse' anything? Any? Not even one good one?

GlowingGhoul said:

Can you cite any examples of "Net Neutrality" making sure ISP's 'didn't abuse' anything? Any? Not even one good one?

Click to expand...

Throttling Netflix

GlowingGhoul said:

Can you cite any examples of "Net Neutrality" making sure ISP's 'didn't abuse' anything? Any? Not even one good one?

Click to expand...

It was proven that Netflix traffic stopped being throttled when Netflix gave in and paid the ransom. Whether they were throttling the bandwidth or forcing it to old/slow equipment it is the same fucking thing. It proved they were throttling.

Milkman said:

They dont want net neutrailty, they are just acting like it so they can get more power over the process to skew it in their favor.

https://consumerist.com/2017/07/12/...-are-not-suddenly-in-favor-of-net-neutrality/

Click to expand...

Spidey329 said:

Those companies are only paying lip service to their customers as they lobby to kill it. Do you really think a bot network would be deployed and a massive amount of lobby dollars would be funneled in for something they don't want? If these ISPs are ok with NN, they wouldn't care either way.

I also don't see how NN crushed any sort of startup under difficult regulations. That seems like a big stretch. These ISPs already have a form of monopoly, NN just helped make sure they didn't further abuse it.

You need to lay off the coffee, as it seems you might be drinking from Pai's massive Reese's branded cup.

Click to expand...

Exactly this, They only want to look good but are desperate to kill it.

c@Nc3r said:

WTF are you talking about? Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have been against it from the beginning and fought it in court. They lost because Wheeler changed the classification that made it so the internet could be regulated as a common carrier by the FCC and then we got net neutrality on books. Those 3 do not want net neutrality. If they are saying they want it now it is only for PR, in closed meetings they still want to be able to fleece the American public as much as they can and removing net neutrality does that.

As a side note net neutrality does not hurt small business at all. It actually protects them so they don't get extorted by being forced to pay extra to have decent bandwidth to their sites.

Edited to add that I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows the ISPs are not for NN. For a second I thought some weird mandella effect thing was going on.

Click to expand...

this.

it's the only way startups can be start ups they won't have to try and compete with netflix and pay the ridiculous fee for traffic isps want netflix google et. al to pay.

Wow, that's terrific! Citing "Netflix Throttling" as an example where the FCC stepped in and used it's Net Neutrality powers to put a stop to it!

The only problem is the FCC didn't do anything.

So, NEXT, please one good example of the FCC's "Net Neutrality" powers being used to do anything for the consumer. Just one example. I'll keep checking back.

Net Neutrality can never exist in many countries. It's either going to be controlled by the government of the companies that own the government. It's a lose/lose.

c@Nc3r said:

It was proven that Netflix traffic stopped being throttled when Netflix gave in and paid the ransom. Whether they were throttling the bandwidth or forcing it to old/slow equipment it is the same fucking thing. It proved they were throttling.

Click to expand...

Uh huh, and the FCC did what with your precious "Net Neutrality/ Title II" powers about it? What was that? Oh right, NOTHING.

So what exactly has changed since the 'death' of Net Neutrality?

{NG}Fidel said:

We aren't bracing for much here in D.C.

Click to expand...

I was about to say, "5 whole angry nerds will bring the metro to a crawl"

I post about net neutrality on a semi regular basis and I barely get an eyebrow raise because people don't realize what's at stake.

GlowingGhoul said:

Uh huh, and the FCC did what with your precious "Net Neutrality/ Title II" powers about it? What was that? Oh right, NOTHING.

So what exactly has changed since the 'death' of Net Neutrality?

Click to expand...

If the parent's in the kitchen, you don't try to steal from the cookie jar.

Meaning:

If your ass is on the line for punishment, you act like an angel till you can't get your hand slapped any more.

BUT: A couple carriers are recompressing netflix streams. AND AT&T is starting to sell your traffic data which was oddly enough part of the FCC's net neutrality bill till it was struck down. Basically it's small stuff that won't get so much an eyebrow until some senator's privacy is compromised.

But lets take your argument as true: "The common carriers won't change a thing, because they haven't yet and therefore likely never will"

If that were the case, then net neutrality shouldn't be a big deal to them. But oh wait it is! They oppose it. DUH!

GlowingGhoul said:

Uh huh, and the FCC did what with your precious "Net Neutrality/ Title II" powers about it? What was that? Oh right, NOTHING.

So what exactly has changed since the 'death' of Net Neutrality?

Click to expand...

If Netflix hadn't given in something would have eventually happened but they didn't want to hurt the consumers and their business in the mean time so it is what it is. With out NN the fast lanes would have become a reality already. Affecting all small business for the worse, while just annoying all large business. You can act like NN isn't doing anything but we all know it is and we all know what the ISPs will do the second it is gone.

c@Nc3r said:

If Netflix hadn't given in something would have eventually happened but they didn't want to hurt the consumers and their business in the mean time so it is what it is. With out NN the fast lanes would have become a reality already. Affecting all small business for the worse, while just annoying all large business. You can act like NN isn't doing anything but we all know it is and we all know what the ISPs will do the second it is gone.

Click to expand...

Meaning, Netflix didn't want to raise their rates, make them less appealing to consumers. But they are also didn't want to pay more for their lopsided use of the network.

What parts of Net Neutrality are in play right now? The stuff that was canceled earlier this year never went into effect to begin with. As far as I knew the few things that have been tried to be implemented were quickly rescinded under lawsuit.

Now one thing that is a concern under NN is the repeated use of the word "lawful content". Now you might say, well duh, you can't put kid porn on the Internet. But you already can't do that. And there is situations like this. How does Net Neutrality protect against this:


I do not use Gab.ai, but I find this very concerning. Shutting down a domain name because of the "lawful content" concept. Gab.ai is no different then Twitter. But Gab.ai is a competitor to Twitter and they do not censor like Twitter does.

For reference, here is the FCC's charter about NN.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/open-internet

How do FCC rules protect the Open Internet?
The FCC's Open Internet rules protect and maintain open, uninhibited access to lawful online content. The rules specifically prohibit:

• Blocking: Broadband providers may not block access to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.
• Throttling: Broadband providers may not deliberately target some lawful internet traffic to be delivered to users more slowly than other traffic.
• Paid prioritization: Broadband providers may not favor some internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind. Internet service providers are also banned from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

c@Nc3r said:

WTF are you talking about? Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have been against it from the beginning and fought it in court. They lost because Wheeler changed the classification that made it so the internet could be regulated as a common carrier by the FCC and then we got net neutrality on books. Those 3 do not want net neutrality. If they are saying they want it now it is only for PR, in closed meetings they still want to be able to fleece the American public as much as they can and removing net neutrality does that.

As a side note net neutrality does not hurt small business at all. It actually protects them so they don't get extorted by being forced to pay extra to have decent bandwidth to their sites.

Edited to add that I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows the ISPs are not for NN. For a second I thought some weird mandella effect thing was going on.

Click to expand...

They are completely with it because they get to be the ones to write the law to make themselves the only ones that can ever live up to them ... thus securing their own monopoly.

This absolutely kills small business because they can't climb the initial regulation wall and be profitable. A wall you are letting the mega companies define.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15959932/comcast-verizon-att-net-neutrality-day-of-action

Look, whatever, but if it's good for big business then it's good for us. Seriously, how many times does President Trump have to explain this very simple concept? No wonder he can't get anything done.

Net Neutrality = Affordable Healthcare. LOL

Until these companies stop charging your ISP for used bandwidth, there will be a valid argument against NN, as most people understand it and how the FCC tried to implement it.

I'm not a fan of net neutrality because it is attempting to fix a problem that was created by regulation, with more regulation. First it was the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act. That established the monopolies on building the initial infrastructure that would become what is today's broadband. That's literally all it took. Now for you to start an ISP it requires incredible capital investment and expensive legal defense and in many markets local laws prevent you from doing it . (Reference: https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-ne...-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/). If "we" are going to fix the issue with regulation, i want the regulation to focus on encouraging small players in the market and paving the way for lowering the costs of laying fiber etc. vs controlling company's behaviors, i think that is something government is exceptionally bad at, especially when you start throwing money in there.

Taldren said:

Net Neutrality = Internet stagnation as regulations crush startups and the big companies will only provide what they are required at absurd rates that people will have to pay because of the regulation created monopoly handed to them by the FCC.

When Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T WANT Net Neutrality ... you know its time to back off and rethink things.

Click to expand...

c@Nc3r said:

WTF are you talking about? Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have been against it from the beginning and fought it in court. They lost because Wheeler changed the classification that made it so the internet could be regulated as a common carrier by the FCC and then we got net neutrality on books. Those 3 do not want net neutrality. If they are saying they want it now it is only for PR, in closed meetings they still want to be able to fleece the American public as much as they can and removing net neutrality does that.

As a side note net neutrality does not hurt small business at all. It actually protects them so they don't get extorted by being forced to pay extra to have decent bandwidth to their sites.

Edited to add that I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows the ISPs are not for NN. For a second I thought some weird mandella effect thing was going on.

Click to expand...

There's Net Neutrality and then there's regulation with Net Neutrality on the title. Not the same thing.

GlowingGhoul said:

Can you cite any examples of "Net Neutrality" making sure ISP's 'didn't abuse' anything? Any? Not even one good one?

Click to expand...

And then net neutrality made this double dipping mostly illegal, thus preventing the next evolution of the above:

Wierdo said:

And then net neutrality made this double dipping mostly illegal, thus preventing the next evolution of the above:

Click to expand...

That would be more meaningful if Netflix stopped paying the toll after the regulations went through. Did they?

The net is just a big dating site it seems thank Zuckerberg for that. Also to make money for Bit Coin Bit Cash farmers along with spending that stuff on Amazon. I want my 1997 Warez sites back with Diablo game graphics and long scrolling web pages all in black.

In this thread, we see a bunch of people who have no idea what net neutrality actually is. And that's shocking considering this is a site full of tech enthusiasts.

Net neutrality is the default state of the internet, that has always existed. There just wasn't a name for it, or a regulation to enforce it. It didn't become a thing until ISPs that also happen to be content providers got pissed that Netflix was stealing their market share, and they wanted to double dip, or throttle to reduce competition. When giant companies choose to do the wrong thing and fuck over consumers, it is absolutely the governments responsibility to step in and put a stop to it. They don't always do it, and they certainly don't always do it correctly. But that has more to do with the fact that the same giant corporations doing the fucking, have bought the very people in government that are responsible for putting a stop to it.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with "regulating the internet". It's not about the government controlling anything. It can be summed up as this:

"Hey asshole, quit throttling my shit that I paid for".

That's it. There is nothing else to it, despite attempts by people to muddy the issue, or by people repeating stuff they do not understand.

If you are against NN, or undecided, or concerned that it's "government regulating the internet", then ask yourself this. Do you believe Verizon/Comcast/AT&T/etc should have the legal right to throttle Netflix if they don't pay an extra fee? For bandwidth they already paid for? yes or no. If you choose no, then you must be on the side of net neutrality. If you choose yes, then you can kindly go fuck yourself, as you are in favor of giant corporations screwing everyone over just to make some asshole rich enough so he can buy a boat big enough to park his other boat inside.

Maybe one positive out of ISPs potentially winning this legislative "shopping spree" is that without NN protection they could arguably become responsible for censoring all the disgusting racist content online, wiping the pathetic KKK and neo-nazi stuff off the face of the digital landscape if sued enough, kinda like the child-lock policies in the UK and - gasp - China.

So I would expect a torrent of lawsuits - at least from strategically apt civil orgs taking advantage of the opening - going after them to do so until they cave in. Money trumps speech, and doubly so for hate speech.

Would still rather NN sticks around to keep Netflix and others from having to pay ransoms - to competitors who happen to own the pipes - though, passing that to the consumer of course, but at least there's a silver lining in there.